Does failure to give a warning/announcement of a K9 meet the criteria for excessive force?

Does failure to give a warning/announcement of a K9 meet the criteria for excessive force?

• A. Yes
• B. No
• C. Sometimes
• D. Not specified

Answer: (A)

Warnings before releasing a police canine are part of applying force in a way that’s proportional to the threat. A dog bite or apprehension is a significant, intrusive use of force, so giving a warning first allows the suspect a chance to submit or comply without the dog being deployed. If no warning is given when there’s time to issue one and there isn’t an immediate danger that justifies skipping the warning, the use of the dog can be viewed as excessive because a safer, less intrusive option was not attempted. There are legitimate exceptions, of course, such as situations where issuing a warning would place officers or others at risk or where the suspect’s actions prevent a warning from being feasible. But in the typical scenario described, failing to warn supports finding excessive force.

Warnings before releasing a police canine are part of applying force in a way that’s proportional to the threat. A dog bite or apprehension is a significant, intrusive use of force, so giving a warning first allows the suspect a chance to submit or comply without the dog being deployed. If no warning is given when there’s time to issue one and there isn’t an immediate danger that justifies skipping the warning, the use of the dog can be viewed as excessive because a safer, less intrusive option was not attempted.

There are legitimate exceptions, of course, such as situations where issuing a warning would place officers or others at risk or where the suspect’s actions prevent a warning from being feasible. But in the typical scenario described, failing to warn supports finding excessive force.